Bloggings On Immigration Law And Policy

From the ACLU which is part of the coalition that is behind this suit:

Implementation Of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law

FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 22, 2010

PHOENIX – At a hearing today in a federal court in Phoenix, the American Civil
Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups argued that Arizona's
discriminatory new law, known as SB 1070, should be blocked pending a final
court ruling on its constitutionality. The law, scheduled to go into effect on
July 29, requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who
they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S. According to the
coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and
non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.

The U.S. Department of Justice, in a separate lawsuit, will also ask the court
to block SB 1070 in a hearing later today. The court, in the civil rights
coalition's case, will also hear arguments on the state of Arizona's motion to
dismiss the case.

The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law
Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the
Asian American Center for Advancing Justice – ACLU of Arizona, National Day
Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.

In May, the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the extreme law charging that
it invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First
Amendment and interferes with federal law. Friday's filing seeks to halt
implementation of the law while the case is litigated.

The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed
below.

Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:

"We are asking the court to block SB 1070 right now because if this
discriminatory law went into effect for even one day, it would be one day too
many. Any law that requires law enforcement to ask people they stop and suspect
of being undocumented for their 'papers' violates the U.S. Constitution and the
American values of fairness and equality. This law is a clear invitation for
racial profiling, and we're confident that the court will understand the
importance of preventing it from ever taking effect."

Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC:

"Judge Bolton heard from lawyers representing organizations ranging from
small non-profit service providers to the federal government, asking her to
block the implementation of this pernicious law. Inaction on SB 1070 will lead
to widespread fear and threatens the constitutional rights and societal values
of all Arizonans. Unified voices of civil rights leaders, law enforcement
officers and interested citizens are fighting to keep this unconstitutional law
from hurting countless Arizonans and undermining our nation's values of fair
treatment under the law."

Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:

"We are here today in Arizona to ensure that SB 1070 does not take effect
next week, as this fundamentally unconstitutional law opens the door for law
enforcement to discriminate against Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and
other people of color who look or sound 'foreign.' We have faith the court
understands that immigration enforcement is solely the responsibility of the
federal government and that it will block this modern-day version of the
Chinese Exclusion Act."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:

"While proponents of SB 1070 would have us believe that they have a
monopoly on the rule of law, the federal court remains the arbiter of justice
in this case. The courageous plaintiffs who have come forward to challenge this
unconstitutional racial profiling law are optimistic that the judge will strike
down this discriminatory law, which has already resulted in the harassment of
innocent people."

Others have suggested this, but we're now hearing that Majority Leader Reid is looking at trying to get a DREAM Act vote before the November election. According to Roll Call (subscription required):

In an interview with La Opinion, the Nevada Democrat said he is largely leaving it up to reform advocates to tell him when a comprehensive bill is no longer viable and that the Senate should instead move to the narrower DREAM Act.

After backers of a comprehensive bill say “that they feel we cannot get [comprehensive immigration reform] done this year — and the reason why we cannot do it, it’s because we don’t have a single Republican — then I would like to figure out when can we do the DREAM Act. I would like to do it before the elections,” Reid told La Opinion.

I'm ready to tell Reid today that CIR is not viable at this point and that we should look at smaller measures - DREAM, legal immigration reform, AgJobs, etc. - in the near term. CIR will eventually be necessary, but we're farther away from the necessary votes than we've been in some time.

While there are some politicians genuinely concerned about the subject of immigration who are backing anti-immigration laws because they believe in the cause, there are many more who have jumped on the anti-immigration bandwagon to score political points (John McCain - I'm talking to you). I wonder if politicians in small towns that don't have a lot of fat in their budgets are going to re-evaluate the costs and benefits when they have to explain to constituents why they have to pay hefty fees to plaintiffs in lawsuits like this one in a small town in Nebraska. Sure Sheriff Joe will laugh off his $500,000 verdict. But I don't think others will necessarily have the same reaction.

About The Author

Greg Siskind is a partner in Siskind Susser's Memphis, Tennessee, office. After graduating magna cum laude from Vanderbilt University, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago. Mr. Siskind is a member of AILA, a board member of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and a member of the ABA, where he serves on the LPM Publishing Board as Marketing Vice Chairman. He is the author of several books, including the J Visa Guidebook and The Lawyer's Guide to Marketing on the Internet. Mr. Siskind practices all areas of immigration law, specializing in immigration matters of the health care and technology industries. He can be reached by email at gsiskind@visalaw.com.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.